This is What Will Happen at the Democratic Convention

Can Sanders do it? Or is Clinton truly inevitable?

Math vs. Media: Part One

Bernie Sanders has vowed to fight relentlessly for the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination up to the convention and, despite the apparent consensus of the media’s talking heads that the campaign is a lost cause, he has held fast to his claim that there is a “narrow path to victory.” I am reminded of Galadriel’s ominous words of advice, in the Fellowship of the Ring: The quest stands upon the edge of a knife — stray but a little, and it will fail…

It has even become something of a weekly occurrence for Hillary Clinton and her Wallstreet-backed campaign to imply, insinuate, or flat-out demand that Sanders withdraw his bid for the nomination — they are growing increasingly indignant about the fact that Sanders is trying to win. Which brings us to the heart of the issue — can Bernie Sanders–can we–win the delegates needed for the nomination?

The answer to this question is as simple as it is misleading — No. No, my friends, we cannot. And yet–! And yet, neither can Hillary Clinton — and I am going to show you what the media is willfully hiding from you. I am going to show you why, using the one thing that even the media can’t hide: Math.

Why Clinton Will Not Secure the Nomination, According to Math

According to the Green Papers, Clinton stands (today, April 28th) with 1,664 pledged delegates, while Sanders has gathered 1,371. The amount of delegates needed to secure the nomination is 2,383 and, if you’ll pardon me for my use of arithmetic, I will now demonstrate why that number is hopelessly out of reach for the Clinton campaign.†

Hillary needs 719 more delegates to reach 2,383 because:

2,383 – 1,664 = 719

Now, the pledged delegates that are available to grab in the remaining states all-together amount to 1,016 and in order to attain that blessed number, Clinton will have to win an average of 70.7% of the remaining states. This is because:

719 ÷ 1,016 = 0.707677 or approximately 71%

You might be thinking that 71% is not such an unattainable number for Hillary and her powerful Wallstreet backers — you might be thinking that but you’d be betting against longer odds than would be wise. You see, of the 1,016 delegates remaining, 475 of those delegates are to be won in California, alone — California, which has a semi-open primary. California, where Clinton is polling at a mere 49%. California, where Clinton’s support has been declining as the Sanders Campaign gains visibility and momentum. California — the ace that Sanders, as much as the media, have concealed up his sleeve.

Because Bernie Sanders performs at his absolute best in open primaries and because he consistently rises in the polls, while Clinton consistently falls, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will perform better than 49 points, let alone win the contest. Let’s do some more math:

Of the 475 delegates available in California on June 7th, lets say Hillary takes 49% of those (even though she will almost certainly take less). That would give her 232.75 delegates, which we’ll round up to an even 234.

475 x 0.49 = 232.75

Next, let’s add that to her current total of 1,664, bringing her up to 1,897. Now, she needs an additional 486 delegates to reach the magic number of 2,383, right? Let’s find out how many delegates Clinton would have to win in the remaining states (besides California, of course).

Of the 541 delegates left, once the 475 CA delegates have been subtracted from the 1,016 delegate total, Clinton is going to have to win almost 90% of the remaining non-California delegates! This is because, when you divide the number of delegates that Clinton needs after California by the number of delegates remaining after California, you get 0.898 or 89%, rounded down:

486 ÷ 541 = 0.898 or 89.8%

Now, how likely does that sound? It’s not likely in Oregon, a fairly progressive state that shares its general attitudes with Washington, a state that Sanders won with about 70% of the vote. It’s not likely in West Virginia, either, where Sanders is currently leading in the polls. Nor is it likely in Indiana where Sanders and Clinton are almost neck-and-neck, which votes on May 3rd. That nomination is feeling a lot further away now, isn’t it?

Okay, okay — maybe you’re thinking, “John, I think you’re being unfair, Clinton could certainly win California.” To which I would reply: I admire your optimism, my friend — and since you’re so optimistic, let’s run those numbers again — but this time, let’s assume that Clinton, for whatever reason, defies the consistent trends that have prevailed over the entire primary season. Let’s say, she jumps up 11% now, winning the California primary with 60% of the vote. So:

475 x 0.6 = 285

Now, add the 285 delegates to Clinton’s current total:

285 + 1,664 = 1,949

But:

2,383 – 1,949 = 434

So, Clinton will still need to scrape up 434 delegates somewhere other than California, some how. Which means — Hold on, first we have to figure out how much of the remaining delegates she’ll have to win:

434 ÷ 541 = .802218 or 80%

Wow! Even if Clinton actually wins California with 60% to Sanders with 40%, she will still have to secure about 80% of the remaining vote! Again, this certainly doesn’t seem likely in Oregon, West Virginia, or Indiana, which means the actual percentage would climb each time she failed to take 80% of a state! Now, are you starting to see why I am saying that Clinton will not be securing the nomination before the convention?

Why Sanders Will Win, According to Math

If you’ve found yourself thinking, “Well, Sanders won’t secure the nomination, either!” You are almost 100% right! Well, 99.6% right, anyway. Because, if we take Sanders’ current delegate total of 1,371, subtract that from the magic 2,383, then divide that by the remaining available delegates, we get 0.996, see:

2,383 – 1,371 = 1,012

1,012 ÷ 1,016 = 0.996 or 99.6%

Therefore, Sanders would have to secure a whopping 99.6% victory in all remaining states to secure the nomination! I think this may be one of the few things that both Berners and Clintonistas could agree on: that that is impossible. But to those of you that are thinking, “John! This is terrible” or “Haha! Take that, Sanders!” I would reply: You are both wrong. Mostly. Let me explain:

First off, let’s acknowledge that the math seems to prohibit both candidates from securing the nomination before the convention — so what does this mean? This means that, since Sanders will not give up before the convention, there will almost certainly be a “contested convention.”

“Um… But John…” you may be saying, “Won’t Hillary still be miles ahead of Sanders in votes at the convention?”

To which I would reply: I’m glad you asked, my paid Hillary-supporter friend! Allow me to demonstrate how that will also not be the case, no matter what the media would have you believe. Follow me!

Since neither of them will be securing the 2,383 needed for the nomination, let’s take a look at another number that has been hiding in plain sight for far too long. I’d like you to meet the number, 4,051. That’s the number of total pledged delegates that are available from all 50 states, plus DC, US territories, and the Democrats abroad. As it should be obvious, a majority of these delegates would be 2,026 because:

4,051 ÷ 2 = 2,025.5

At the convention, this number is going to matter more than the unattainable 2,383 delegates that no one will have. That being the case, let’s take a look at what Bernie Sanders would have to do to get there. If Sanders won 60% of the remaining contests (and remember how 475 of 1,016 are in California, where Sanders will do well), then the numbers at the convention would look like this:

1,016 x .60 = 609.6

Round that to 610 and add it to Sanders current total of 1,371, then divide that by the total delegate count, 4,051:

610 + 1,371 = 1,981

1,981 ÷ 4,051 = .489 or 48.9%

So, in the scenario where Sanders takes about 60% of the remaining vote, we’re essentially looking at a 49 to 51% vote total at the convention — not so bad, eh? And that’s easily within Sanders’ reach, if we do well in California (which we almost certainly will). Let’s look at what happens if he takes 70% (just like he did last time we went to the West/Left Coast):

1,016 x .70 = 711.2, round it down to 711, then:

711 + 1,371 = 2,082

2,082 ÷ 4,051 = 0.513 or 51.3%

If Sanders took 70%, the convention would look like 51.3 to 48.7%, in favor of Sanders! But 70%, while possible, is a bit of a stretch — the new magic number, for Sanders anyway, is actually 64.4% of the remaining states, which would mean winning 655 of the 1,016 remaining delegates, pushing his total up to 2,026, the bare majority of delegates, leaving Clinton one delegate behind at 2,025.

Now, does Sanders winning 64.4% sound too far-fetched? Not particularly, especially when we consider his advantages on the Left Coast, in California’s 475 delegate semi-open primary. An uphill climb, though? Certainly. Remember, though: it is all but certain that Clinton will not secure the nomination, while Sanders supporters are going to be pouring into Philadelphia for the convention by the tens of thousands. Even if Bernie fell short by a few points, we’re still essentially looking at a tie. And that’s when all hell is going to break loose.

Things are going to become very interesting if we have a near-tie at the convention to be decided by the super-delegates.

Things are going to become very interesting when they look back at the many states that are still crying out for a re-vote, states fraught with “voting irregularities,” polling station closures, and voter roll purges — all states which Clinton won and all states which so far have not received justice.

Things are going to become very interesting when the DNC and the super-delegates realize that Sanders, unlike the Wallstreet-backed Clinton-Machine, will bring in not only millions of independent voters that were unable to vote in the primaries, but even defecting Republican votes, sealing the GOP’s utter defeat in November.

Things are going to become very interesting when, while they are thinking about all of these things, they are doing so to the earth-shaking, thunderous chants of“Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” from his tens of thousands of supporters outside, who have time-and-again proven their ability to rally by the tens of thousands — do you think that we won’t do the same at the convention?

And finally, things are going to become very, very interesting when the super-delegates and the DNC are forced to choose, publicly, whether to hand the nomination to Clinton and watch the millions of independents walk away, along with millions of former-democrat Sanders-supporters, basically handing the general election to the neo-fascists Trump or Cruz — or, to hand it to Sanders, a leader who will have the support, not only of the entire Democratic Party, but of millions of Independents, Green Party voters, and — yes, indeed — even Republicans defecting from the extremist GOP. That will be the most interesting part, I think. I’ll see you all in Philadelphia.

In Solidarity,John Laurits

P.S. Please feel totally free to reproduce this article, re-post, re-use, re-cycle, or whatever, in whole or in part — credit would be lovely but, ultimately, I don’t really care! Do as ye will! Peace!

†I have not counted the so-called “super-delegates” because they do not vote until the convention, which you might not know because of the media’s disgustingly corrupt attempt to warp the public’s perception of the election.

Except for his position on guns (he’s from hunter-heavy Vermont and must at least stay in the senate),Bernie Sanders is a great candidate for president. Not just to try to pull Hillary to the left, but also because many things need to start happening quicker if we are to keep the planet and the USA safe for seven generations to come.

1) remove all troops from overseas.

Who says the USA should control all human and natural resources, and wow aren’t there enough people mad at us already? We’ve attacked 91 countries (some three times, some even more than that) since World War II. We’ve set up army, navy, air force, marine bases nearly everywhere. We’ve exerted ourselves when not wanted and it’s ALL for the folks in the filthy rich top part of the top 1%.

in the early 80s Ronald Reagan exacerbates the Iraq Iran War by selling arms to both sides.

Read Craig Unger’s book “House of Bush House of Saud,” in it you will see that we (The Bush Family) are natural allies with the Sunnis, thus Saddam (Sunni, Baathist) got a lot of support in the Iran war (83-85 give or take) and the wiping out of Kurds, that came at the request of Turkey, who, after all, houses all those U.S. Missiles pointed at Moscow. SUnni: part of Iraq, all of Saudi Arbia. Shia: Pbug parts of Iraq, a lessening part of Syria and all of Iran. So watch the Iran/Saudi Arabia relationship closely.

Reagan uses funds raised by selling so many arms to Iran and Iraq and diverts it to gun shipments to Nicaragua. Congress then cuts off the Contra campaign, and this lead Reagan to ask the states to send their National Guard with about 10 guns each to HONDURAS, where the guns are walked over the river to Nicaragua. The planes needed for such an exercise were 300 727s, all rented by Frank Clinton (Bill’s Brother!) from FALWELL Aviation of Lynchburg, VA. Down go the guns, and back came giant duffle bags full of…Well the FBI would suggest cocaine, and it was surely that of Panamanian President/cartel squealer, Manuel Noriega. Gone then was his $200,000 a year from the CIA to tell on Cartel sized cocaine exporters, and, amazingly, the trial set for Roanoke VA, is moved to Miami, and the fact that planes were rented from Falwell disappears. (Nice to be a tax free “religion” even if you are raising money for the CIA, etc.) When William J. Clinton is nominated, ALL COUNTS against Frank are dropped by the FBI.

Bush I kills 3,500 in Panama in order to arrest ONE Manuel Noriega. He then starts Desert Storm, which does a decent job of loosening up the Iraq zone, after the country lost 800,000 in the Iran war (Iran lost 1.2 million). OK so it appears the BUsh clan is supporting the Shias in this maneuver.

Saddam is demonized for his slaughter of Kurds. Hmm, where did he get the chemical weapons?

After skirmishes in Kosovo, and wiping out 50,000 in Belgrade, Clinton continues the sanctions on Iraq and continual bombing runs that hardly make the news, since Americans are not dying.

Bush II steps in and finishes the job against Saddam, except he is allowed to preach in court, partly due to the great representation he got from Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, and LATER, the sole legal counsel to AL Gore (though he is a Republican) in his failed attempt to win and election he had already won in Florida. Yes, what on earth was Ramsey Clark doing representing Saddam Hussein? He was giving Saddam more time to fan the flames of war against the Shias, before being executed. It’s that simple.

As Sabres rattle in Ukraine (please note, that the Ukraine Coup and burning of Kiev happened DURING PUTIN’S Sochi Olympics) This is what I call back-up War number ONE. Number TWO is North Korea. But Putin and Kim are STRONG MEN, and Donald Trump is fanning huge flames of war, and almost begging Islamic extremists to attack places OTHER than Europe with his talk of expanded use of torture and “Nuking ISIS.”

Nearly or over 10 million refugees plow in from the Middle East to Europe, Paris, Brussels and who knows where attacks will surely cripple Europe’s VITAL economic engine, known as USA tourists in the summer.

Even Bernie Sanders says we must wipe out ISIS. That’s 5 for 5 on that score of remaining hopefuls, and um, maybe 25 for 25 of those once in the field.

Many Middle Eastern refugees are rich and very well educated. Forget Europe, they are in Malaysia and Indonesia, and moving into the Philippines.

ISIS, essentially a Sunnis group trying to carve a country out of Syria and Iraq (and?) …Two things about the latest comments crack me up to the point of crying: President Obama, in his last State of the Union Address says “The last thing we want in the Middle east is a continual ground war.” OH? Then why didn’t you bring ALL the troops home wise guy, then it’s not our war any more! (Well, it’s because we’d rather fight wars abroad…Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Indonesia, and 94 more concerted attacks in over 80 countries since World War II, SEE William Blum’s http://williamblum.org/books and http://www.killinghope.org. ANd the second is that Hillary Clinton is still running as some type of opposition to the Republican regime, when her husband stole all their ideas, and screwed American Labor and African Americans via: NAFTA, GATT 2, Welfare Reform of 1995, and Banking Reform of 1995. The first three caused the prison population to double (nearly all men of color) and yet African Americans swept Hillary into her so-called nomination. OH they did? Yes they did! Wow Bernie NEVER ONCE questioned BILL CLINTON’s Ridiculous record when facing off against Hillary. Ha. She never should have gotten a single thinking-man’s vote from ANY minority. Oh Propaganda works!

The closer Trump gets to the White House, the more scared educated people get. OH baby, a Strong Man Putin is one thing, way less is a strong man who is not so strong, like Mr. Kim, but he’s still back-up war Number two. But a strong-man mentality at the control of those who ALREADY know how to torture, and hmm, enough nuclear arms to blow up the world 14 times, and OH now that’s a strong man. Forget Stalin or HItle, they had ways and means, but NOT like the ways and means Trump would have. OH GOD OH GOD. PS Cruz wants to spy on Islamic neighborhoods in the USA. Damn it! As if Patriot Acts One and Two weren’t enough of an affront to the US Constitution, these warped FUNDAMENTALIST types only read the bible (the thin versions cleansed of stuff they don’t like by simply not mentioning them in church) as their marching orders.

What’s worse, a fundamentalist Muslim or Fundamentlaist Christian. Well, since the Crusades, you’d have to say the Christians have laid on the most war and ruination, and lately by about a 300-1 ratio in terms of war-deaths-of the unarmed civilian kind, versus deaths of Armed American soldiers. Yes indeed we’ve killed 300 civilians for every one soldier lost. Which of the 5 left running, even Bernie, would call that anything but “good hunting.” Yep Bernie should have CHANGED his gun idea since he was/is running on a NATIONAL basis not just Vermont.

NO Habeas Corpus since 2003, and it means our government can arrest anyone and NOT TELL THEM WHY they are being arrested. That and the FEMA camps mean even a civil type war of rolling riots, etc. is possible. I don’t doubt the gun manufacturers are licking their chops for the day the USA becomes chaotic (please be never ).

For the poor and underemployed, and impoverished, and homeless, and many minorities who don’t get a fair shot, as you know, thousands of neighborhoods in the USA have had the experience of being surrounded by violence and crime for DECADES NOW. Who is solving this? Trump won’t kids.

Shia Versus Sunni; USA versus the World, and the World Versus the USA. Think Europe is happy about the refugee mess we handed them via our absurd wars? OH GOODIE now we have an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. At what cost, and when will the soldiers stop protecting it?

Back up war #3, on top of the ISIS Crisis is, then the USA itself. Cry now, I am.